Top 5 most overrated boxers of All Time

I love the hypocrisy.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Why laugh at the truth, the man was a completely shot fighter when he lost to Mullings, Terry had no legs, and could not follow up on any combos and had no snap in his punches.

BTW what happened to your avatars with the sexy Chinese/Czech chick?

 

Like Pea I laugh at the hypocrisy Benny...You attack Leonard but give Norris a pass for pretty much the same thing.

Sofia is shelved for now mate...She was Canadian from half Croatian, half Chinese stock. Her site makes you pay for her pictures even though she maintains on blogs that she isnt like that, she is down to earth and just kind of does modeling for fun. I dont know that **** me for some reason.
But she is still fine as ****, she will probably make a come back at some stage.....But I wanted to give some love for my aussie compadre Johnny Famechon.

 

Unlike Ray Leonard who was at the peak of his boxing career against Terry Norris and was "exposed".

 

And thats exactly what was wrong with Ray against Terry yet you and Rooster act like it was a prime Leonard, thats why he's laughing.

 

No I never said Leonard was prime against Norris, I said he wasn't a shot fighter, he was still a world class fighter.

I forgot who I said this to the other day but I'll say it to you, WAR, Pea. Getting beatdown by a prime Norris at 154 is not an indication of being shot, it's an indication of being inferior. Getting beat by a tough journeyman like Mullins is really an indication of being shot.

 

Leonard had no legs, and could not follow up on any combos and had no snap in his punches, just like what you said about Norris against Mullings,

so when Norris lose's in a fight where he show signs of decline he is shot but when Leonard shows the exact same signs against Norris he is still a world class fighter,

thats hypocrisy right there,

 

He hadn't even had a fight in over a year, and never won a fight afterward. In contrast to Norris against Mullings, who was still a reigning titleholder and performing well just prior to the Mullings fight.

Leonard was a lot farther removed from his best when he fought Norris than Norris was when he fought Mullings.

 

No its not, you obviously ignored the point I made, but I'm not going to go in circles with you.

 

Bingo.

 

You mean the way Leonard would've shut down Pryor and Jackson? :deal

 

oh I know you ain't gonna go around in circles with me because I just caught you out for being a hypocrite.

 

He didn't win a fight afterward cause he retired for 6 years! Leonard retired cause he couldn't live with the thought that another fighter had his number, and if he would have continued on he would have done very well but continuing on and doing well would have given Norris win over Leonard even more accolades and that's exactly what Leonard didn't want.

Just because he was a reigning titleholder doesn't mean he wasn't shot to pieces. Sorry for my redundancy here but like I said 'getting beat by Mullings is an indication of being completely shot, getting beat by a prime Norris is not.

Even you don't believe that deep down, the Leonard of the Norris fight would blitz Mullings like nothing.

 

The fact that he was still performing well in those fights does.

No, BEING SHOT is an indication of being shot. You acknowledged that yourself in post #228 when you described Norris' legs and reflexes, but changed your angle after sugarsean called you on your double standard.